digital negatives for silver gelatin

anyone here used digital negatives for regular ol' photo paper? any tips?

i got an enlarger a few months ago and have used it five or six times...it's hard finding the time to set up the laundry room as a darkroom, mix the chem, make the prints and tear it all down again. i'm making prints but they're very rudimentary.

i like the idea of making archival photos, split toning and all that. the actual enlargement process i can take or leave. i'm much better at getting the image ready in photoshop, removing dust, adjusting levels etc. i like the idea of outputting a digital negative, and then contact-printing onto photo paper. i also like the idea of printing out on something other than film, to make paper negatives.

how good an image can i get with my epson 2000P? is an imagesetter neg going to be better/

any curve recommendations? color ink choices for the negative?

and basically, is this a viable method to make regular, sharp prints? or will it always be something that is more 'artistic' (blurry, grainly, weird lookin')?

There are a few different methods for creating digital negatives out there.

Ron Reeder & Brad Hinkel have a new books coming out LINK.

There was also some information on both their websites about the basics of their method. Although I'm sure the book will be more in depth.

Another method is posted on Alternative Photography LINK.
I haven't used this method, but reading through gives you an idea of how colored negatives have an impact on your alt printing.

Dan Burkholder was one of the first (the first?) to start working with digital negatives LINK.

I bought his book as I heard there are some helpful tips, but haven't had time to read it yet.

One of the members here have created their own method LINK

I tried an earlier version, but had some problems with errors, although now I believe they have been worked out, as people are reporting success. I'll probably give it a second try soon. Seems like a very interesting way to make negatives.

Finally I settled on Precision Digital Negatives, because it allows me to build accurate curves, and provides a complete system LINK.

PDN seemed expensive at first, but after I bought it and read though the book, and saw all the materials included for calculating curves, I felt it was well worth the price (perhaps under priced).

I would suggest finding a method and creating your own curves. There are too many variables involved to effectively use someone else's curves and produce a good print consistantly.

thanks menglert. i've used the ternary method for determining the best color to use with cyanotypes and kallitypes, when trying to use my HP printer (which became moot when i acquired an epson 2000P). i can, in at least a rudimentary fashion, construct curves. i was looking for starting points though. thank you very much for all the links! i've seen some of them and will investigate the others.

the more important questions for me are though: what can i expect from the process? i have a feeling my inkjet negatives are not going to look as good as enlarger-based prints. or at least they're going to look different. is imagesetter a better way to go? or will it still be different and perhaps inferior?

i'm quite happy to give this a try and experiment. it's just that i get into my laundryroom...er, darkroom...so rarely, i want to be prepared next time i go. if the consensus is that a 2000P is going to make crappy negatives for this process, i'd prefer not to spend five hours finding it out myself.

have you tried digital negs with photo paper/silver gelatin? or is your experience with other, 'alternative' processes?

I have seen silver prints made with digital negatives from an imagesetter. The LensWork special edition prints were made in this manner. To the naked eye, they are indistinguishable from originals.

I have not seen silver prints made from ink jet negatives, so I can only offer an educated guess on their quality. My guess is that they would be inferior in resolution to an image made from an imagesetter negative due to the thickness of the substrate and the lithographic film's thin substrate. The film would also have an advantage in the ability to capture detail beyond the printer resolution.

The ability of the silver paper to render finer details than a hand coated textured paper would highlight the differences between the imagesetter and the inkjet negative.

Just my opinion, not based on any personal testing. I could easily be persuaded if someone had some facts to the contrary.

Joe Lipka said:

I have not seen silver prints made from ink jet negatives, so I can only offer an educated guess on their quality. My guess is that they would be inferior in resolution to an image made from an imagesetter negative due to the thickness of the substrate and the lithographic film's thin substrate. The film would also have an advantage in the ability to capture detail beyond the printer resolution.

The ability of the silver paper to render finer details than a hand coated textured paper would highlight the differences between the imagesetter and the inkjet negative.

Just my opinion, not based on any personal testing. I could easily be persuaded if someone had some facts to the contrary.

Click to expand...

I have made some prints on AZO from digital negatives from an inkjet printer (Epson 2200). The original negatives were 5X7 B&W. The prints are good, but not as good as one would expect from a 2X-3X projection of a 5X7 negative. There is less resolution, since printer resolution limits one to about 7-8 lppm, and you would expect much more than that from a 5X7 negative enlarged less than 3X. Also, the printer dithering pattern is clearly visible when you look at the print with a loup. However, viewed at normal viewing distance the prints look very good.

Sandy

sanking said:

I have made some prints on AZO from digital negatives from an inkjet printer (Epson 2200). The original negatives were 5X7 B&W. The prints are good, but not as good as one would expect from a 2X-3X projection of a 5X7 negative. There is less resolution, since printer resolution limits one to about 7-8 lppm, and you would expect much more than that from a 5X7 negative enlarged less than 3X. Also, the printer dithering pattern is clearly visible when you look at the print with a loup. However, viewed at normal viewing distance the prints look very good.

Sandy

Click to expand...

What about printing the negative on the Pictorico white film instead of the clear? Would that improve the quality of the final print?

thanks joe and sandy, that's the sort of info i was looking for. and sandy, when it comes to resolution, it would be less of an issue when enlarging 35mm right?

and i suppose ultimately this technique isn't going to look appreciably worse than an inkjet print on photo paper. (probably a little fuzzier) and inkjet prints - excuse me, 'archival pigment' prints - are quite acceptable to many people.

i'm glad to know it's at least possible to get acceptable results. i will definitely give it a try, next time i'm in the darkroom. thanks!

and Digidurst: i would think that using white film as a neg would help smooth out the dot pattern through diffusion a little, but at the expense of resolution. not necessarily a bad thing.

rippo said:

and i suppose ultimately this technique isn't going to look appreciably worse than an inkjet print on photo paper. (probably a little fuzzier) and inkjet prints - excuse me, 'archival pigment' prints - are quite acceptable to many people.

Click to expand...

Not true at all in my experience. The last inkjet negatives I made for silver paper were made with Dan Burkholder's curves on both OHP and white film. I have not tried Mark Nelson's PDN. The results I got looked fine as a negative, but when printed the heavy dithering in the shadows (highlights on the final print) really showed through. This led me to abandon the inkjet negative route. White film was better than OHP, but printing times were much longer.

I currently use a film recorder to write to FP4 sheet film and find the results to be good enough for a 4X to 6X enlargement. They look even better contact printed.

I think for silver prints a film recorder is best, followed by an image setter, with inkjets being last. However for ease of use inkjets are by far the easiest option.

I have seen Sandy King's negatives made with PDN at the APUG conference and they looked much better than I was getting with all inks using Burkholder's methods. So it may be worth looking again.

I'm curious about this too -- I bought a box of white film recently without really having a good grip on WHY it's better for silver (my assumption is that there is some low-scale diffusion that keep the contrast from shooting out of the park). I've been out of town and haven't printed to it yet (in the next few days I hope, assuming I can keep from being sent out again).

Bjorke said:

I'm curious about this too -- I bought a box of white film recently without really having a good grip on WHY it's better for silver (my assumption is that there is some low-scale diffusion that keep the contrast from shooting out of the park). I've been out of town and haven't printed to it yet (in the next few days I hope, assuming I can keep from being sent out again).

Click to expand...

Yes, it seems to me that for silver gelatin anyway, the white film might be the way to go. I too will be experimenting with it

Digidurst said:

Yes, it seems to me that for silver gelatin anyway, the white film might be the way to go. I too will be experimenting with it

Click to expand...

I tested the white film and believe that it does give slighlty better detail, and with the Epson 2200, a less grainy look. Unfortunately, the material adds about three or four stops to printing times and that made printing with AZO impossibly long with the normal R40 floods. Silver projection papers are much faster so may work better with the white film.

For any process ES the PDN system will suggest a number of color combinations that will work, and some of these produce a smoother look than others. However, the printer also makes a big difference. The R1800, for example, gives a much smoother and less grainy look on Pictorioc OHP than the 2200, with silver printing.

Sandy King

Bjorke said:

I'm curious about this too -- I bought a box of white film recently without really having a good grip on WHY it's better for silver (my assumption is that there is some low-scale diffusion that keep the contrast from shooting out of the park). I've been out of town and haven't printed to it yet (in the next few days I hope, assuming I can keep from being sent out again).

Click to expand...

This has been my (limited) experience. OHP is too contrasty and too many inkjet printing artefacts show up in the print. I have used white film with Dan Burkholder curves for silver paper on a project scanning, cleaning and contact printing negatives from my grandfather's WWII service. Most of these negatives were very soft to begin with and I have not yet tried this technique with a modern sharp negative and then compared a contact print with traditionally enlarged negative.

The biggest breakthrough was creating a home-made "naked" light source - thin aluminium housing folded around a 100w floodlamp. I scored and bent the aluminium with pliers to create a lip to hold a diffuser (draughting film) and multigrade filters. This took exposure times from over 5 minutes with a normal enlarger at full aperture to around 20-30 seconds.
Attached is one example of a silver fibre contact print basically unadjusted from the scan and also two shots of the homemade light source (total cost about $20).

I am very happy with the prints I have made so far. It brought new life to many badly scratched and stained negatives. Most of the work involved was the clean-up of the neg scan in PS. The Burkholder curves, digital neg printing and contact printing were relatively quick and easy!

p.s. the contact print shown is on 9.5 x 12 inch AGFA MCC paper

Tony Egan said:

This has been my (limited) experience. OHP is too contrasty and too many inkjet printing artefacts show up in the print. I have used white film with Dan Burkholder curves for silver paper on a project scanning, cleaning and contact printing negatives from my grandfather's WWII service. Most of these negatives were very soft to begin with and I have not yet tried this technique with a modern sharp negative and then compared a contact print with traditionally enlarged negative.

The biggest breakthrough was creating a home-made "naked" light source - thin aluminium housing folded around a 100w floodlamp. I scored and bent the aluminium with pliers to create a lip to hold a diffuser (draughting film) and multigrade filters. This took exposure times from over 5 minutes with a normal enlarger at full aperture to around 20-30 seconds.
Attached is one example of a silver fibre contact print basically unadjusted from the scan and also two shots of the homemade light source (total cost about $20).

I am very happy with the prints I have made so far. It brought new life to many badly scratched and stained negatives. Most of the work involved was the clean-up of the neg scan in PS. The Burkholder curves, digital neg printing and contact printing were relatively quick and easy!

p.s. the contact print shown is on 9.5 x 12 inch AGFA MCC paper

Click to expand...

So what printer are you using?

Don Bryant

sanking said:

I tested the white film and believe that it does give slighlty better detail, and with the Epson 2200, a less grainy look. Unfortunately, the material adds about three or four stops to printing times and that made printing with AZO impossibly long with the normal R40 floods. Silver projection papers are much faster so may work better with the white film.

Sandy King

Click to expand...

I'm just curious... how long is impossibly long?

if the exposure time get into the minute+ range, couldn't you just rig up a utility light overhead, and skip the relatively dim enlarger light altogether?

Digidurst said:

I'm just curious... how long is impossibly long?

Click to expand...

Normal exposures with a 60 watt R40 flood on AZO are in the 30-60 second range. Use of the white Pictorico film increases times to 8 minutes and more. Perhaps not impossibly long, but much longer than most silver printers woud like.

Sandy King

sorry sandy, i didn't see the reference to AZO. so my comment was superfluous.

Don Bryant said:

So what printer are you using?

Don Bryant

Click to expand...

Don - Epson 1290 at 1440dpi

I have not seen silver prints made from ink jet negatives, so I can only offer an educated guess on their quality. My guess is that they would be inferior in resolution to an image made from an imagesetter negative due to the thickness of the substrate and the lithographic film's thin substrate. The film would also have an advantage in the ability to capture detail beyond the printer resolution.

The ability of the silver paper to render finer details than a hand coated textured paper would highlight the differences between the imagesetter and the inkjet negative.

Just my opinion, not based on any personal testing. I could easily be persuaded if someone had some facts to the contrary.

Click to expand...

Joe,

You are welcome to come over to Chapel Hill and I can show you a digital negative and silver gelatin print.

Mike
www.mprosenberg.com

Tony Egan said:

I have used white film with Dan Burkholder curves for silver paper on a project scanning

Click to expand...

So if I understand your post correctly, you are using the Pictorico White film and have been satisifed with it.

Are you using a colorized negative as well?

Thanks,

Don Bryant

Don Bryant said:

So if I understand your post correctly, you are using the Pictorico White film and have been satisifed with it.
Are you using a colorized negative as well?
Don Bryant

Click to expand...

Don,
Yes, Pictorico High Gloss White Film. Not colorizing negative (apart from the inevitable inkjet color caste which I can't seem to completely eliminate with CMYK printing). I try to get as close to neutral gray as possible and my light source per above post has facility for multigrade filters. I have been going to Grade 4+ in most cases to get satisfactory shadows/blacks and prints which look more like grade 1-2 using conventional enlargement of negatives. Contrast could be further tweaked by adjusting Burkholder curves also but for now it's one variable at a time!

Tony

Tony Egan said:

Don,
Yes, Pictorico High Gloss White Film. Not colorizing negative (apart from the inevitable inkjet color caste which I can't seem to completely eliminate with CMYK printing). I try to get as close to neutral gray as possible and my light source per above post has facility for multigrade filters. I have been going to Grade 4+ in most cases to get satisfactory shadows/blacks and prints which look more like grade 1-2 using conventional enlargement of negatives. Contrast could be further tweaked by adjusting Burkholder curves also but for now it's one variable at a time!

Tony

Click to expand...

So what about substrate grain? I've not tried the white film but the Pictorico OHP makes prints with too much substrate grain for my taste.

Don Bryant

The white film has no grain that I can see. The downside is that it blocks a lot of light.

Don,
I haven't noticed anything similar to the "grain" in the substrate material which may be a problem with the OHP printing surface. But as noted above the project I was printing was sourced from badly marked 60 year old negatives so it's not like the source material was modern, sharp LF negs with lots of beautifully graduated sky!
One day I may get to that point but at the moment my process evolved to solve a particular problem and goal I had. I would still prefer to contact print or enlarge silver material in the traditional way.
Tony

well i finally got around to trying digital negatives on silver gel paper tonight. it worked pretty well! i used pictorico white film, printed the neg on my epson 2000P, picking a very dark blue color so that i was firing on more than just black ink.

i did some tests on a step tablet to get the exposure (25 sec for me and my enlarger), then did a CharThrob analysis. i printed it on .edu paper as it's just a test. in terms of density, the print came out at least as good as any actual enlargements i've yet attempted - but then i've only used my newly-acquired enlarger four or five times, so i'm no pro. but that's the whole point: i know what i'm doing with photoshop way more than i do with an enlarger, but i eventually want to print on fiber paper and tone the little blighters. this could very well be a usable method for me.

my contact frame (so-called) needs a little work though. two pieces of frame glass, neg and paper stuck between, held together with eight beefy binder clips. one side of the print is a bit fuzzy, and i'll maybe get some thicker glass and perhaps put something soft behind the paper, like felt. but the parts that are sharp look good, and i wouldn't know the negative (8x10 from a 35mm scan, 3000 x 2400 pixels) was digital unless someone had told me.

i'm sure i have lower standards than some of you. but this was soooo much more comfortable to do! and it fits in with my kallitype/cyanotype contact printing as well.